Tree Protection Bylaw

Share Tree Protection Bylaw on Facebook Share Tree Protection Bylaw on Twitter Share Tree Protection Bylaw on Linkedin Email Tree Protection Bylaw link

Our urban forests play an important role in our community to keep the city beautiful, help to clean the air, absorb pollution and greenhouse gases, maintain cooler temperatures for the comfort of people and the survival of fish and wildlife, reduce erosion, help mitigate climate change and protect residents access to nature, which is proven to improve mental health and well-being.

In 2022, Council adopted the City's first Urban Forest Strategy. The strategy provides clear direction to update the existing Tree Protection Bylaw to align it with a number of the Strategy's Goals. In addition, the Parks, Recreation & Culture Master Plan provides guidance to ensure that future bylaws, plans, and policies conform to current industry trends and best management practices.

The Strategy is built around five goals:


The city engaged Diamond Head Consulting to support the development of an updated Tree Protection Bylaw. A comprehensive review and engagement process was conducted in the Summer of 2023 including the community engagement data gathered through the Urban Forest Strategy consultation and best practice research from other municipalities. In the Fall of 2023, the City undertook engagement with Council committees and strategic technical advisory parties.

The new Tree Protection Bylaw will address administrative and best practice updates and include some major influence updates that fundamentally change how the Bylaw regulates the retention, removal, protection, and replacement/re-establishment of trees as guided by the Strategy and the Master Plan.

View the recommended updates to the Tree Protection Bylaw. If you have questions, please submit them below!

Our urban forests play an important role in our community to keep the city beautiful, help to clean the air, absorb pollution and greenhouse gases, maintain cooler temperatures for the comfort of people and the survival of fish and wildlife, reduce erosion, help mitigate climate change and protect residents access to nature, which is proven to improve mental health and well-being.

In 2022, Council adopted the City's first Urban Forest Strategy. The strategy provides clear direction to update the existing Tree Protection Bylaw to align it with a number of the Strategy's Goals. In addition, the Parks, Recreation & Culture Master Plan provides guidance to ensure that future bylaws, plans, and policies conform to current industry trends and best management practices.

The Strategy is built around five goals:


The city engaged Diamond Head Consulting to support the development of an updated Tree Protection Bylaw. A comprehensive review and engagement process was conducted in the Summer of 2023 including the community engagement data gathered through the Urban Forest Strategy consultation and best practice research from other municipalities. In the Fall of 2023, the City undertook engagement with Council committees and strategic technical advisory parties.

The new Tree Protection Bylaw will address administrative and best practice updates and include some major influence updates that fundamentally change how the Bylaw regulates the retention, removal, protection, and replacement/re-establishment of trees as guided by the Strategy and the Master Plan.

View the recommended updates to the Tree Protection Bylaw. If you have questions, please submit them below!

Ask us a question!

Ask a question about the Tree Protection Bylaw.

You need to be signed in to add your question.

  • Share In addition to the sources consulted in developing this plan, will the city also be consulting the BC Wildfire Service/FireSmart BC to provide recommendations on which trees are safest to plant/replant, within the current context of continued climate warming and increasing wildfires in the Fraser Valley? For example, the combustibility of softwoods like spruce, pine, and Douglas fir pose a greater risk to public safety than less-combustible hardwoods like oak, birch, and maple. Hardwoods also provide natural fire breaks, in the event of structural and wildfires. It would be nice to see a policy in the plan that either stipulates or strongly recommends that the BC Wildfire Service/FireSmart BC be consulted on a regular basis (e.g. annually) to provide current best practices for tree selection. on Facebook Share In addition to the sources consulted in developing this plan, will the city also be consulting the BC Wildfire Service/FireSmart BC to provide recommendations on which trees are safest to plant/replant, within the current context of continued climate warming and increasing wildfires in the Fraser Valley? For example, the combustibility of softwoods like spruce, pine, and Douglas fir pose a greater risk to public safety than less-combustible hardwoods like oak, birch, and maple. Hardwoods also provide natural fire breaks, in the event of structural and wildfires. It would be nice to see a policy in the plan that either stipulates or strongly recommends that the BC Wildfire Service/FireSmart BC be consulted on a regular basis (e.g. annually) to provide current best practices for tree selection. on Twitter Share In addition to the sources consulted in developing this plan, will the city also be consulting the BC Wildfire Service/FireSmart BC to provide recommendations on which trees are safest to plant/replant, within the current context of continued climate warming and increasing wildfires in the Fraser Valley? For example, the combustibility of softwoods like spruce, pine, and Douglas fir pose a greater risk to public safety than less-combustible hardwoods like oak, birch, and maple. Hardwoods also provide natural fire breaks, in the event of structural and wildfires. It would be nice to see a policy in the plan that either stipulates or strongly recommends that the BC Wildfire Service/FireSmart BC be consulted on a regular basis (e.g. annually) to provide current best practices for tree selection. on Linkedin Email In addition to the sources consulted in developing this plan, will the city also be consulting the BC Wildfire Service/FireSmart BC to provide recommendations on which trees are safest to plant/replant, within the current context of continued climate warming and increasing wildfires in the Fraser Valley? For example, the combustibility of softwoods like spruce, pine, and Douglas fir pose a greater risk to public safety than less-combustible hardwoods like oak, birch, and maple. Hardwoods also provide natural fire breaks, in the event of structural and wildfires. It would be nice to see a policy in the plan that either stipulates or strongly recommends that the BC Wildfire Service/FireSmart BC be consulted on a regular basis (e.g. annually) to provide current best practices for tree selection. link

    In addition to the sources consulted in developing this plan, will the city also be consulting the BC Wildfire Service/FireSmart BC to provide recommendations on which trees are safest to plant/replant, within the current context of continued climate warming and increasing wildfires in the Fraser Valley? For example, the combustibility of softwoods like spruce, pine, and Douglas fir pose a greater risk to public safety than less-combustible hardwoods like oak, birch, and maple. Hardwoods also provide natural fire breaks, in the event of structural and wildfires. It would be nice to see a policy in the plan that either stipulates or strongly recommends that the BC Wildfire Service/FireSmart BC be consulted on a regular basis (e.g. annually) to provide current best practices for tree selection.

    thestens asked 2 months ago

    Thank you for your question.  Wildfire mitigation is not specifically addressed in the proposed Tree Management Bylaw update.  You might be interested to know that in Abbotsford, there are other mechanisms that address wildfire mitigation within the City, such as the Wildfire Hazard Development Permit Guidelines that were introduced within the McKee Neighbourhood Plan area.  These guidelines are intended to adapt FireSmart principles and wildfire management and prevention best practices for development occurring along the City's Wildland Urban Interface or adjacent to forested slopes that may be exposed to wildfire risk areas.  

  • Share Can the new bylaw be applied retroactively to trees cut down without a permit in the last 5 years? on Facebook Share Can the new bylaw be applied retroactively to trees cut down without a permit in the last 5 years? on Twitter Share Can the new bylaw be applied retroactively to trees cut down without a permit in the last 5 years? on Linkedin Email Can the new bylaw be applied retroactively to trees cut down without a permit in the last 5 years? link

    Can the new bylaw be applied retroactively to trees cut down without a permit in the last 5 years?

    E asked 3 months ago

    Thank you for your question.  The provisions of the updated bylaw will be applicable to all new permits once it has been adopted by Council.  

  • Share Recommendation 7 removes the worrying scenario we were faced with where wild cherries from trees on city land were dropping in our yard, ruining our lawn as they broke down but worse of all our dog was eating dozens of freshly dropped cherries a day. As there were hundreds almost thousands of cherries in our yard from the several trees it was impossible to keep up with the drop to prevent our dog from investing so many cherries (pip and all). How would the department approach a similar health risk situation when the wording of the bylaw removes nuisance and only addresses possible property damage? on Facebook Share Recommendation 7 removes the worrying scenario we were faced with where wild cherries from trees on city land were dropping in our yard, ruining our lawn as they broke down but worse of all our dog was eating dozens of freshly dropped cherries a day. As there were hundreds almost thousands of cherries in our yard from the several trees it was impossible to keep up with the drop to prevent our dog from investing so many cherries (pip and all). How would the department approach a similar health risk situation when the wording of the bylaw removes nuisance and only addresses possible property damage? on Twitter Share Recommendation 7 removes the worrying scenario we were faced with where wild cherries from trees on city land were dropping in our yard, ruining our lawn as they broke down but worse of all our dog was eating dozens of freshly dropped cherries a day. As there were hundreds almost thousands of cherries in our yard from the several trees it was impossible to keep up with the drop to prevent our dog from investing so many cherries (pip and all). How would the department approach a similar health risk situation when the wording of the bylaw removes nuisance and only addresses possible property damage? on Linkedin Email Recommendation 7 removes the worrying scenario we were faced with where wild cherries from trees on city land were dropping in our yard, ruining our lawn as they broke down but worse of all our dog was eating dozens of freshly dropped cherries a day. As there were hundreds almost thousands of cherries in our yard from the several trees it was impossible to keep up with the drop to prevent our dog from investing so many cherries (pip and all). How would the department approach a similar health risk situation when the wording of the bylaw removes nuisance and only addresses possible property damage? link

    Recommendation 7 removes the worrying scenario we were faced with where wild cherries from trees on city land were dropping in our yard, ruining our lawn as they broke down but worse of all our dog was eating dozens of freshly dropped cherries a day. As there were hundreds almost thousands of cherries in our yard from the several trees it was impossible to keep up with the drop to prevent our dog from investing so many cherries (pip and all). How would the department approach a similar health risk situation when the wording of the bylaw removes nuisance and only addresses possible property damage?

    Boppinbobby asked 3 months ago

    Thank you for your inquiry regarding Recommendation 7 of the Tree Protection Bylaw Update, which pertains to the removal of trees deemed as nuisances. The decision to remove the "nuisance tree" clause was made after reviewing how this clause has been managed and interpreted over time, and recognizing the need for clarity within the bylaw around how tree permit refusals should be administered.  


    The previous inclusion of the "nuisance tree" clause lacked a clear definition and direction, leading to subjective interpretations and in many cases an overuse of the provision.  We found that allowing the removal of trees without specific criteria or standards can result in unnecessary tree removals and notable canopy reduction. Under the new Bylaw, the reasons for  tree removal will be focused around providing more objective guidelines for tree removal and ensuring that decisions are made based on established standards, criteria and professional assessment.


    While the removal of the "nuisance tree" clause may raise concerns about addressing trees that pose non-property-damage-related nuisances, City staff administering the Bylaw will still have the ability to exercise professional judgment and rely on the expertise of qualified professionals to assess situations where the specific exemption criteria are not met. We understand the importance of addressing legitimate concerns regarding tree nuisances that may not fall under the property damage category, so we are open to considering alternative solutions to tree removal, such as tree maintenance, pruning, or implementing mitigation measures that can often address nuisance tree issues. 
     

    Ultimately, our goal is to balance the preservation of our urban forest canopy with the needs and concerns of the community, ensuring that decisions regarding tree removal are made thoughtfully and with consideration for the broader environmental impact.  

  • Share Why is there not more effort to retain existing trees. Why is the city not modeling the tree bylaws after other cities that have shown more success retaining tree cover. Why does a small seedling that will take decades to reach the size of a mature tree it is replacing count as 2 trees? Why are builders not given more incentives to design builds around existing trees? Why are new builds in residential spaces (not increasing housing density) allowed to build larger foot print homes that don't retain yard space for tree cover? on Facebook Share Why is there not more effort to retain existing trees. Why is the city not modeling the tree bylaws after other cities that have shown more success retaining tree cover. Why does a small seedling that will take decades to reach the size of a mature tree it is replacing count as 2 trees? Why are builders not given more incentives to design builds around existing trees? Why are new builds in residential spaces (not increasing housing density) allowed to build larger foot print homes that don't retain yard space for tree cover? on Twitter Share Why is there not more effort to retain existing trees. Why is the city not modeling the tree bylaws after other cities that have shown more success retaining tree cover. Why does a small seedling that will take decades to reach the size of a mature tree it is replacing count as 2 trees? Why are builders not given more incentives to design builds around existing trees? Why are new builds in residential spaces (not increasing housing density) allowed to build larger foot print homes that don't retain yard space for tree cover? on Linkedin Email Why is there not more effort to retain existing trees. Why is the city not modeling the tree bylaws after other cities that have shown more success retaining tree cover. Why does a small seedling that will take decades to reach the size of a mature tree it is replacing count as 2 trees? Why are builders not given more incentives to design builds around existing trees? Why are new builds in residential spaces (not increasing housing density) allowed to build larger foot print homes that don't retain yard space for tree cover? link

    Why is there not more effort to retain existing trees. Why is the city not modeling the tree bylaws after other cities that have shown more success retaining tree cover. Why does a small seedling that will take decades to reach the size of a mature tree it is replacing count as 2 trees? Why are builders not given more incentives to design builds around existing trees? Why are new builds in residential spaces (not increasing housing density) allowed to build larger foot print homes that don't retain yard space for tree cover?

    Betterabby asked 3 months ago

    Thank you for your questions. The proposed revisions to the Tree Protection Bylaw aim to address many of the concerns you've raised, including enhancing incentives for the preservation of mature trees, implementing stronger tree protection protocols during construction activities, and establishing clearer criteria for permit denials for tree removal.  The proposed updates to the bylaw around tree species and stock size for replacement will provide greater flexibility in selecting and planting the right tree for the right site based on the site-to-site specific constraints of each property, particularly as our urban areas become more densely developed.

     

    In developing these recommendations, we conducted extensive background research, which included reviewing and comparing tree bylaws from other communities and drawn on best practices and innovative approaches observed elsewhere to help inform our proposed updates.  We recognize that effective tree management is interconnected with various land use regulations and strategic policies. As such, we are actively exploring opportunities to harmonize this bylaw with other regulatory frameworks, to better support urban forest canopy retention outcomes long term.

  • Share If there is a roof height restriction for a house, why would this not also be followed for the type of trees that can be planted? defeats the purpose of the roof height restriction when the trees are allowed to be over on Facebook Share If there is a roof height restriction for a house, why would this not also be followed for the type of trees that can be planted? defeats the purpose of the roof height restriction when the trees are allowed to be over on Twitter Share If there is a roof height restriction for a house, why would this not also be followed for the type of trees that can be planted? defeats the purpose of the roof height restriction when the trees are allowed to be over on Linkedin Email If there is a roof height restriction for a house, why would this not also be followed for the type of trees that can be planted? defeats the purpose of the roof height restriction when the trees are allowed to be over link

    If there is a roof height restriction for a house, why would this not also be followed for the type of trees that can be planted? defeats the purpose of the roof height restriction when the trees are allowed to be over

    SVandeven asked 3 months ago

    Thank you for your inquiry regarding roof and tree height restrictions. In Abbotsford, building height regulations are governed by both the BC Building Code and the Zoning Bylaw, primarily to ensure considerations such as life safety and neighborhood form and character are addressed.

    The proposed revisions to the Tree Protections Bylaw do not specifically regulate tree heights on individual properties. Instead, the focus is on fostering a healthy and diverse tree canopy over the long term. As part of this bylaw update process, we aim to enhance the species list within the bylaw schedule. This includes categorizing tree species based on their size (small, medium, large) and their adaptability to our changing climate. The intention is to facilitate informed tree selection for planting, considering specific site conditions.


Page last updated: 08 Feb 2024, 04:34 PM